Regarding, an infinite past, I also find it interest that the Second Law is a statistical statement. Of course, with the number of particles being so large, the probability of violations of the second law is so small that is very near to it being a probability zero event. However, if time is infinite towards the past, then almost surely there were violations of the second law. In fact, infinite amounts of such violations. I don't know if these incredibly sporadic violations could change entropy dramatically, but I don't see why not. Also, maybe entropy is...infinite. You can increase it as much as you want but it would still remain infinite. This would be consistent with a universe that expands until being almost empty and then remains for long, long periods of time until a Big Bang event occurs and entropy continues to increase.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIn terms of instrument measurements, there is no way you can explain the wobble in Mercury's orbit that is caused by time being warped if the wobble in Mercury's orbit was, unlike what the equations of physics predict, NOT caused by time being warped.
Can we tell the difference between matter or energy warping than time? You
can assume time is warping, but what if it is what you are using to measure
it is, and not time?
Kelly
You can verify the wobble in Mercury's orbit simply by observing it though a telescope.
Originally posted by epiphinehasThis discussion probably belongs in the science forum. Otherwise,
If time is independent of the universe, how is it that matter warps time?
you are probably going to have to give a crash course in the Physics
that relates to this subject. It does appear that recent scientific
thinking has come around to the Biblical idea that time and the
universe had a beginning. And as Stephen Hawking said, "it is now
being taken for granted"; and that is why he was giving his lecture
on the beginning of time.
Originally posted by KellyJayTime is what is measured. If the laws of physics change in such a way that time appears to have gone faster in location A, then time did go faster in location A. The definition of time must be based on a measurement.
Can we tell the difference between matter or energy warping than time? You
can assume time is warping, but what if it is what you are using to measure
it is, and not time?
Kelly
It would be more complicated if say one type of atomic clock gave one measurement and a pendulum gave another, but when all known clocks, and all laws of physics change in such a way that time is measured to be going faster then time is going faster. If there is some constant that is not going faster then it needs a new name because 'time' is already taken. You could call it 'universal time' or something like that, but I rather doubt it would have any use in physics because there would be no way to measure it or map it to our time.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI guess if you assume time was warped and that is that, no need to look
In terms of instrument measurements, there is no way you can explain the wobble in Mercury's orbit that is caused by time being warped if the wobble in Mercury's orbit was, unlike what the equations of physics predict, NOT caused by time being warped.
You can verify the wobble in Mercury's orbit simply by observing it though a telescope.
at anything else is there?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is not an assumption. It is fact. What you want is another concept which as I say, you may label 'universal time' if you like, but I really don't see it being useful to anyone as there are no known ways of measuring such a constant.
I guess if you assume time was warped and that is that, no need to look
at anything else is there?
Kelly
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou maybe did not see my correction in the light of twhitehead's and Playnka's comments. I agree that time is wedded to the universe....
I think you are misconceptualizing time. Time is the measurement of progress from a state of low entropy to high entropy—inseparable from the spatial dimension. Further, time has a definite direction—i.e., it is a law of nature that things never flow from a state of high entropy to a state of low entropy. Further still, the implication of the s ...[text shortened]... t death (due to extreme entropy). Far from being nonsensical, a beginning to time is necessary.
....unless we jump to the level blackbeetle's talking about, which is just a different level of discourse....
....and that is so difficult it seems, to change the level of discourse without feeling the pinch of contradiction.
It is what non-exclusivists can do, but is still not easy, and should be recognized at least when it is real (which, with bb, it most definitely is).
Originally posted by karoly aczelSo far it seems to me that people judge time much like we do the wind, we
Do you think we could prove this somehow?(that light's limitation does not alter time) I'm not good at advanced math are you? Maybe we need aother poster to help here ....
see its effects, we feel the air moving against us, we see things moved by it,
but the wind is lost on us unless we see doing something.
Kelly